Methods Used

Section 3.5.3 of this literature review established that contact with the justice

system increases the likelihood of further offending, diversionary programmes on the other hand, can move young people away from formal sanctions (YJB, 2018). This can include making referrals to other agencies and are used for lower level offences (YJB, 2018). However, it is difficult to compare across research studies as there are a variety of interventions which are classed as diversionary (Alder et al., 2016; Schwalbe, Gearing, Mackenzie, Brewer & Ibrahim, 2012; Wilson & Hoge, 2012). There have been inconsistent findings from meta-analysis reviews of the impact of youth diversion programmes on reoffending; Schwalbe et al. (2012) did not find a significant difference between diversion and traditional forms of justice, which contrasts with Wilson and Hoge (2012) who found that diverted young people had a significantly lower reoffending rate than those who had formal intervention with the justice system. Wilson and Hoge (2012) found no differences between diversion approaches which included cautions and other programmes. The decline in the number of first-time entrants into the YJS has been largely attributed to diversionary

67

programmes but there is little known about what programmes are being used and how effective they are (Bateman, 2014).

Restorative Justice (RJ) has been prioritised in YOTs, and this approach underpins much of the work that YOTs conduct with young people and is arguably the most common approach to dealing with those who break the law (Sherman & Strang, 2007; YJB, 2015). The focus of RJ is on direct or indirect communication between the offender and victim in order to recognise and repair the harm caused by offending (Restorative Justice Council, 2016). All victims should be given the opportunity to take part in RJ and any communication should take place in a controlled, safe and voluntary manner (Restorative Justice Council, 2015). The process of RJ has been questioned on its suitability for young people as it requires a level of maturity to take responsibility for the offence and to want to repair the harm caused (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015). It requires willingness from all parties in order to go ahead and young people need to understand the impact and purpose behind RJ (Restorative Justice Council, 2015). A meta-analysis conducted in 2007 found that young people who took part in restorative methods were significantly less likely to reoffend when compared to traditional justice methods (Rodriguez, 2007). A more recent meta-analysis found that young people who took part in RJ reduced their reoffending, however, there was a great variation in the studies which were included (Wong et al., 2016). By contrast, research on the views of young people on RJ, has found that some young people do not acknowledge the value of RJ, and did not want to engage with their victim, or thought it would create a risk (for violent offences) (Larkins & Wainwright, 2014). The same research found that young people who had taken part in an RJ conference found the method helpful in challenging their own behaviour. RJ is a promising method for reducing reoffending providing support for its use by YOTs.

An additional method used to support young people is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). CBT is based on the premise that cognitive deficits and distortions are learned and not innate; therefore, CBT, in a justice setting, helps offenders work on their thoughts and attitudes and thus change their behaviour (Lipsey, Landenberger & Wilson, 2007). However, implementation of CBT in youth justice has led to a number of challenges: there are a wide number of

68

programmes which incorporate aspects of CBT and therefore it is hard to assess the impact; projects often struggle to get referrals, therefore lowering the number of young people who are involved in CBT; and young people do not attend regular sessions, which disrupts the structured design of interventions (Feilzer, Appleton, Roberts & Hoyle, 2004). CBT with adult offenders has reduced offending by more than one and half times in comparison to those who did not have CBT (Lipsey et al., 2007). Further research has demonstrated that CBT can reduce reoffending, with studies including young people up to the age of 25 (Alder et al., 2016). Although there is a wide variation in the types of CBT programmes used, there are promising results for this type of intervention.

Recent research has demonstrated the importance of dealing with trauma to help young people to move away from offending (YJB, 2017). Trauma occurs when an event overwhelms an individual’s capacity to cope; leading to feelings such as fear, terror, helplessness, lack of control and hopelessness (Liddle, Boswell, Wright, Francies & Perry, 2016). The traumatic event can lead to a range of reactions, for instance internalising symptoms, such as depression, withdrawal, or anxiety, and externalising symptoms such as aggression, substance use and risky activities (YJB, 2017). Examples of traumatic events include abuse, neglect, assaults, family violence, community violence, war, acts of terror, racist victimisation and serious injuries. Young people who offend come from the most disadvantaged families and they experience high levels of social, economic deprivation, neglect and abuse (Liddle et al., 2016) with many experiencing childhood trauma (Morris, 2015). Research on 200 young people in custody, found that 31% had experienced substance misuse, 39% had a child protection plan, 33% had an absent mother, 28% had witnessed domestic violence, and 20% of them had self-harmed (Jacobson et al., 2010). Experiencing trauma can disrupt a young person’s ability to judge social situations, cope with stress, consider long-term consequences and negotiate out of difficult situations, as well as exhibiting a lack of emotional self-control and aggressive behaviour (Liddle et al., 2016; YJB, 2017).

Many of the examples of traumatic events, described in the previous paragraph, are a result of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). ACEs were first studied in health research where it was established that ACEs were linked to many

69

causes of death (Felitti et al., 1998) and have been linked to delinquency (Wolff, Baglivio & Piquero, 2017). The research indicated that there were 10 adverse categories: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect, violent treatment towards mother, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce and having an incarcerated household member (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Based on a sample of American youth who had been given a referral in Florida, research found high rates of ACEs in the sample; with the top three including family violence, parental separation or divorce, and household member incarceration (Baglivio et al., 2014). Many in the sample had three or more ACEs, demonstrating the high rates of trauma within those youths who offend. Previous research into ACEs has also established their predictive validity with serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders (Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio & Epps, 2015). Young people who were classed as serious, violent and chronic had more than double the number of ACEs than the comparison group. The authors provided support for Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy (Section 3.3.1) demonstrating that young people who began offending early, experienced multiple traumatic events, had high levels of impulsivity and were more likely to become LCP offenders and offend into adulthood (Fox et al., 2015). This work was supported by Wolff et al. (2017) who found that young people who had a higher number of ACEs were more likely to reoffend than other youths. In addition, ACEs increase the risk of further arrest, with a shorter time to re-arrest found. The authors indicate that interventions with young people should match the ACEs and trauma that they have experienced (Wolff et al., 2017).

In 2017, the YJB published guidance, which provided advice on trauma- informed youth justice, and recommended that practitioners needed training to understand development and attachment issues of young people. In addition, those who had experienced trauma required specialist care where the underlying needs behind the behaviours were tackled (YJB, 2017). Practitioners needed to be able to work flexibly with young people to tailor plans, build trust and encourage stability. Furthermore, acknowledgement that trauma can make young people less resilient to changes was essential, and not all young people would want to share their experiences of trauma. The Trauma Recovery Model (Skuse, & Matthew, 2015) utilises a psychology-led method of working with

70

complex young people. The premise behind the model is that young people need to be ready to make changes in their lives and that requires a number of steps. Young people first need structure and routine in their lives followed by a positive and trusting relationship (Skuse & Matthew, 2015). Thirdly, young people need to feel able to talk about difficult issues, which is where specialist staff can assist. This then allows the young person to form insight and awareness providing a platform for change in behaviour, which leads to a move away from offending (Skuse & Matthew, 2015). This model is the theory behind a Welsh initiative, Enhanced Case Management (ECM), which is an assessment approach. ECM focuses on the developmental causes which have led to the current offending behaviour, and requires psychologist leadership. The approach explains how chronic, underlying and unresolved trauma can affect behaviour, with interventions aimed at the underlying trauma, to help young people move away from offending (YJB Cymru, 2012). A recent trial of ECM in Wales concluded that there should be a further implementation and trial of the approach as there is strong support from all stakeholders (Cordis Bright, 2017).